With Safi Jimba
Trespass to the person assault (V)
Continued from last week
The fact that he had only the day before conducted a communion service in the building may have given to the mind of the plaintiff an erroneous, though honest, view of the sanctity of the building and have caused indignation in his mind which accounted for his impulsive interference with the proceedings of the district officerโฆ
โฆthe defendant had no right forcibly to eject the plaintiff without first giving him the opportunity of withdrawing quietly when his presence was objected to, and still less had he the right to have a blow administered to the plaintiff unless this was necessary for the carrying out of a lawful ejectment. I do not think that the smack on the chops which the defendant admits he ordered was for the purposes, but it was meant as a punishment of the plaintiff for refusing to go quietly and because the defendant was vexed, as he admits he was, by the plaintiff’s remarks. I hold therefore that an assault and battery was committedโฆ under the order and by the direction of the defendant and that the defendant must pay some damagesโฆ
I wish I could believe the plaintiff when he was that at the time he was ordered to remove his that he was on his way to compliment the district officer, as he knew the defendant to be. But the letter written before action with the approval and knowledge of the plaintiff, is inconsistent with this statement and from the evidence I am satisfied that the plaintiff was approaching the defendant in a heated mannerโฆ
To be continued
